Utilitarian perspective on homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce

 As society moves to ‘normalize’ and legalize what God considers sin, more and more things that many consider wrong or harmful are being normalized and legalized.

I believe it will not be 20 years after homosexual MARRIAGE is legalized nationwide (and while I am against it, I recognize it will eventually occur) before pedophilia is legalized.

Its already illegal to have separate gender public restrooms in Colorado. Although I seriously doubt this was the intention, this makes it much easier for pedophiles to stalk/choose their victims.

As society moves forward in its headlong rush to not make people feel bad for doing bad things or being certain ways (its innate, or its an illness, or its genetic – pick the excuse and justification), society begins to rush headlong into decadence and crumbles much like other societies in the past. As society makes it easier to not be self-sacrificing and self-controlled, society moves toward implosion. 

Our constitution and laws are meant to codify morals in the sense that they protect us from harmful actions of others and government. As we have moved to make things like sex before marriage, cohabitation, divorce, and now homosexual sex, acceptable, we have degraded the morals of our society, our children, and the future. What is important is no longer what is right, but what feels good. It used to be the role of government to ease and protect commerce and its inhabitants. Now it is the role of government to encourage individual desires and selfishness and feeling good.

Just as ‘normalizing’ (and making easier and legalizing) sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce have all had detrimental effects on ‘developed’ nations (note that many developed nations have reached a point in their birth-death rates, where there will be an insufficient number of adults to support a growing population of aging people – or are close to reaching this point without immigration), so will homosexual marriage.

Lets us examine the example of the ease with which divorce can be obtained has a highly detrimental effect on children and society. Abundant research has shown that this has damaged children immeasurably, and in turn has damaged society – with increases in behavioral problems and the likelihood that children without both parents in the home have a higher incidence poverty, of divorce and of having children out of wedlock. By redefining marriage as a contract in which one or both parties can easily break the contract, individuals and society have suffered, and are suffering. By redefining society’s mores to allow cohabitation outside of marriage, it is no longer considered taboo to cohabitate – this in turn has led to couples who do so and then marry being much more likely to divorce. This in turn causes more divorces. It is a cycle that our society has yet to unravel. 

Someone said, “the only person who can make a decision about his or her sex outside of marriage, his or her cohabitation, her abortion or his or her divorce is the person himself or herself. “

I agree. However, when such things affect me – even from a purely humanistic and selfish point of view, I have a right and duty to speak out to protect myself.

Speaking from a utilitiarian perspective, it is not cost effective to allow things such as sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce, because they cost society in financial resources due to the fact that the people who participate in such things make it more likely that people will have to raise children alone and/or need counseling to deal with the consequences of such things. This in turn affect the insurance costs for all, as well as increases the tax burden for all.

Let us examine some of these costs:

If people were not to divorce, there would be no need to deal with the chemical and psychological and sociological aspects of the emotional ramifications of divorce. While there might be other issues that people would address through counseling and medical intervention, the effect of divorce would not be one of them. Additionally, there would be less drug addiction, because these same people would not suffer depression, or other psycho/socio disorders/illnesses brought on by divorce. As such they would not begin psychological treatment for these same disorders, and thus would not be introduced to medical solutions, which often lend themselves (by their very nature) to drug abuse and addiction. This in turn would reduce the likelihood of some of these people seeking drugs through fake or imagined illnesses – which costs society in terms of lost work, hospital visits/stays, and increased medical insurance and other medical costs, and increased taxes to support such things, including the loss due to thefts from people’s attempts to either obtain drugs or money to purchase the same. This in turn would also reduce the danger of physical violence/death that sometimes accompanies such thefts.

Someone else said, “As for the child support matter, this potentially valid concern does serve, in a utilitarian sense, to cut counter to the typical arguments against homosexual relationships and abortion. “

Actually, in marriages where there are no children, and only one person in the couple works, alimony must be paid in cases of divorce (in most states). This reduces the standard of living for both parties. This in turn can make it more difficult to receive health insurance, which in turn further reduces the standard of living for both people, as well as increases the cost to society for many of the same reasons mentioned above. This issue is compounded when children are involved.

Additionally, even when both parties work and there is no need for alimony, their standard of living is still reduced upon divorce, thus resulting in cost to the individuals and society as a whole.

As well, we must consider the cost of cohabitation to society. Because people who are single tend to eat out more, when they choose to cohabitate, the funds introduced to society via such activities are lacking. This is true also for those people who rent or purchase homes while they are single. The renting and purchasing of goods associated with homes/apartments introduces money into the economy – and this is reduced when two people choose to cohabitate. The benefits to society of marriage (because of child rearing and the longer and more content lives of the individuals involved) between two heterosexual people outweighs the loss to the economy in those sectors.

We mustn’t forget that people who cohabitate are more likely to separate after extended periods of time, or to divorce if they do marry, and the attendant costs to individuals and society concerning divorce apply to these people as well.

Our second someone said, “Abortion ensures that there are no children born out of such relationships, ensuring that society must not shoulder the costs of raising and supporting such children. Homosexual couples (absent artificial insemination and surrogacy) are not capable of yielding offspring and thus don’t contribute to society’s costs in that regard either. “

What you say concerning abortion is true to an extent. Except that we know those who undergo artifical insemination, or even those who do the ‘natural’ way, have the choice of whether to abort or not, based upon the results of tests run on the the baby while in the womb. Additionally, studies show (and personal experience has also shown) that abortion causes depression and other socio/psycho illnesses in many women. These in turn must be dealt with as mentioned above, and thus have a cost to society and individuals.

We must also consider that many homosexuals (even today, aside from the marriage issue) desire children. If homosexual couples who have children do divorce, the same issues mentioned above concerning divorce and the resulting lowered standard of living hold true for these couples as well.

The past successes in redefining the social mores concerning sex and marriage have resulted in high costs to society. While we can not be 100% sure this will be the case when society’s mores have successfully changed nationwide (indeed worldwide) concerning homosexual marriage, we must postulate there will be some consequences to society that will parallel previous successes.

Of course, we have not even begun to cover the other costs that attend sex outside of marriage, such as the psycho/socio problems, as well as physical problems, such as disease.

Additionally, concerning the practice of homosexual sex, there are costs to society that parallel those costs associated with heterosexual sex outside of marriage. However, there are also other physical costs that are inherent in sodomy that will increase in incidents of occurrence as more people embrace this option.

The people who wanted it easier to get divorces claimed it was for the good of the family, to protect from abuse. Now we have broken families everywhere. The costs are outragiously high (abuse still continues, children have no dad, all parties involved often suffer from depression for at least some period which in turns adversely affect society, increased poverty for single parent families, lowered access to decent educational opportunities, increases in hospital visits due to a lowered economic status not providing access to insurance, increases in drug abuse, etc). It has not proven to be a good thing.

People who suggest cohabitation is a good idea ignore the studies that those who cohabitate have a significantly increased risk for more emotionally painful breakups and divorce.

People who suggest that sex outside of marriage ignore the studies that show increased risks of disease and damage to factors that go into making good relationships, such as self-esteem, trust in self and others, the ability to make and keep committments, etc.

People who suggest any of these things are good ignore the fact that normalizing them have caused others to increase the likelihood of considering these things good and proper and desirable in many cases, or at least acceptable. This in turns increases the likelihood of adversely affecting others by influencing them to do these same things.

The same will occur with homosexual sex and homosexual unions, as they are normalized into our society.

Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, I hold the position that sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, abortion, cohabitation, divorce, and homosexual marriage are bad for individuals and society.

Of course, from a moral perspective, because my morals are deeply influenced by the BIble, I also hold these are wrong.

From a religious perspective, God said these are wrong (if not directly, the principles that support not participating in these acts are certainly in the Bible).

About these ads

21 Responses

  1. W,
    Brave, right, and certainly timely! Note, no one else comments? Takes courage and yes.. the grace of God to speak such! God bless you!
    Fr. R.

  2. Fr. R.,

    No other comments, yet this is one of the most read articles on my blog… weird, huh?

  3. W,
    Yes, people want to ‘be in the loop’ (just knowldege, etc.) shall we say, but not stand in the gap! Discipleship is a lost desire in the church today, sadly.
    Fr. R.

  4. W,
    You have hit the nail on the head! And before we can disciple, we ourselves must be discipled, it is always a two way street or act.
    Fr. R.

    • And the latter becomes problematic if we can not humble ourselves to be able to take direction/instruction/challenge/admonition from others – which is a big problem with our society.

  5. Amen, I have just quoted from my own old dog-eared copy of ‘Humility, The Beauty of Holiness’, by that great Dutch Reformed Christian, Andrew Murray; On another blog…”There are three great motives that urge us to humility. It becomes me as a creature, as sinner, [and] as saint.”
    Fr. R.

  6. W,
    My copy is an old small hardback (James Nisbet & Co. Ltd, London), do you American’s still have this great classic book by Andrew Murray? I carry mine with me often, I mean back and forth (UK to USA). Though I am missing much of my library, but I have my share here too. Plus I have much on my computer, etc. I wonder sometimes how much Christian people read, both Holy Scripture, and Christian books these days?
    Fr. R.

    • I saw it was for sale at amazon.com.

      I have no idea how many people the Bible, let alone read Christian books. It seems to me more people would rather read about the Bible than read the actualy Bible itself. But I could be wrong.

  7. W,
    Oh so very good point! A problem with theolog’s. I hope somehow I have escaped this? Now that I am “irishanglican” the aged, as Paul said of himself. lol
    Fr. R.

    • There was a time in my life when I’d do almost anything to read ABOUT the Bible. But for some reason, I found it hard to actually read God’s word. Now, I’m the other way around. I think this is healthier.

  8. wb,
    Yes, every serious pastor and teacher should go thru this experience. Always the Word of God first. Sadly, many in the church have yet to pass thru it.
    Fr. R.

  9. I will assure you that the reason for the lack of comments against what you have written are due to the fact that upon reading halfway down, it becomes obvious that you are choosing a particular side due to your religious views. I myself almost left here without posting a comment, but then hesitated leaving because I couldn’t fathom why someone who would write a moral/ethical rant couldn’t keep a clear or open head about the subject or content at hand. Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason; while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Reason is the essence of morality and we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason if we want to discover the truth. Again, the difference is the fact that you have not made a sound argument, because you chose to let your emotions and personal religious views guide you, rather than logic or reason. Your “Bible” has been interpreted so many times to so many things over so many years, that it would be very difficult for you to have a bible that would be pure of indifference, let alone to be exactly what God has spoken. A quick example off the top of my head would be: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” To that I say that everything is open to interpretation. Our language today (Which is what your bible is written in) is not what it was then. While the scripture may sound clear, the debate most people have is what actually surrounds the use of the Greek word that this particular version of the Bible translates as “homosexual offenders.” The term is “arsenokoite.” Everything gets lost in translation. Then lets look at the priests themselves, or even better Christianity or Catholocism. Here again, is another case where religion stepped in to shape morality by interpreting scripture to support it, causing universal assent. You have a man of the cloth, who picks apart different passages from the bible with the intent of arranging them to fit his purpose and moral belief (In this case what you believe to fit your argument). Then you have the worshipers who see this man of cloth as a facilitator of the Lord’s word, now believing every word out of his mouth (Which is his own personal view on the subject) as if the Lord himself said it. I will be honest, I didn’t read your entire rant, as soon as I realized you were using religion to steer your argument, I felt very perturbed, that you are a member of our ever evolving society, who quite possibly will be influencing others to have the same uneducated point of view. Can I assume that you are fine with buying slaves, trading them or willing them to your next of kin? Or that you can beat them as long as you don’t kill them….because that is also in your beloved holyier than now “Bible.” Leviticus 25:44 if you want to look it up. I’m done, you can attack me all you want, I won’t be back.

    • The definition of morality is not “the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason.” It is defined as:

      –noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
      1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
      2. moral quality or character.
      3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
      4. a doctrine or system of morals.

      It is conformity to rules of right conduct – God defines those. You are free to agree with them or not. you are free to make up your own. Many have. But that doesnt mean that you will not answer for your actions – in this life or the next.

      Believing that homosexual marriage is bad for the economy and bad for a nation because of its effects in multiple areas does not get negated simply because I also believe it is morally wrong. You just didn’t like my post. That’s fine. But no where have you actually addressed anything I wrote. You simply ignored it and decided it was wrong merely because I am Christian. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding and lack of open-mindedness and your judgmental mind set. Read scripture – its is evident from what God has said that homosexual sex is an abomination and that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God, just as those who lie or steal or murder will not. I dont understand that part, I just know that’s what God has said. Believe it or not.

      Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 that the Law was made for the immoral and included homosexuals in the list of immoral people.

      8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill * their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever * else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

      Yes, the word translated as homosexual is Arsenokoites in the Greek(http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/arsenokoites.html). This is used in both 1 Corinthians 6 and in 1 Timothy 1. Feel free to find another translation – its simply what the word means. You have an interesting idea that what God has said is shaped by society. In fact, its those who do not like what God has said who are trying to redefine what the Bible states.

      Society might evolve, but God never changes. your red herring about slavery is meaningless, as its evident you have never truly read the Bible in its totality. God has been clear about slavery as well – Scripture regulated it, but condemned taking people captive (kidnapping) for it and indeed told people to treat slaves well and to not be a slave if you could be free. Of course, slavery among the Israelites was much more like indentured servanthood.

      God bless you and may you come to love Him as He loved you – He sent His Son to be born a human (which we celebrate as Christmas) to live a sinless life, suffer and die to pay the price for your sins, and raised again to show His power over death as God….

  10. all the things you talked about arent even related, you related homosexual marriage to sex outside marriage cohabitation and paedophillia, and picking at a bible until you find a verse that possibly agrees with your own irrational views is hardly a reasonable argument. also your not christian your catholic, if you were christian you would focus on the teachings of jesus not what people wrote about their own zeitgeist

    • I have NO idea where you think I spoke about pedophilia, but I didn’t and that shows me where your mind went. I wonder why?

      Actually they ARE related – they are all sins God has said to not do. I don’t need to pick ONE verse, there are many which speak out against such things.

      And while you seem to have something against Catholicism, I’ve known many who love God deeply and obey Him passionately.
      A Christian focuses on the whole word of God – including the thou-shall-not verses.

      I used to be bisexual. I have nothing against homosexuals at all. I just don’t want them to go to hell. Neither do I want people who cohabitate or have sex outside of marriage or who are facing a terrible choice in whether to keep a baby or not. God provides a way to not go to hell.
      But if you think Christ doesn’t tell people to not sin, you need to read the Bible.

      http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/christ-did-speak-out-against-homosexuality/

      Christ said to not sin any more – so do what Christ said and don’t sin.

  11. Stumbled across this article whilst looking for a bible quote for some homework.
    I just think it’s worth keeping in mind that it is wbmoore’s right to believe in what he wants, in both religion and ethics. And if those things cross over for him then so be it.

    Although I do not agree with what has been said, and I am not at all religious, this man has not stated these things as a matter of fact. He has simply put across his opinion which he is entitled to. If you don’t like it, well, the internets a big place in which I’m sure you can find someone that shares your views.

    Power to you for standing up in what you believe in!

  12. Gay marriage will lead to pedophila being legalised?
    Are you kidding me?
    Comparing these two things is disgusting, and extremely insulting to all LGBT people.
    I, myself, am a Cathlolic and will not argue whether or not I agree with gay marriage. But what I will comment on is the fact that this article is the most narrow minded piece of literature I have ever read.
    You arue that gay marriage, divorce etc lead to depression, counselling and other mental health issues, which is costly to society? well what do you think comes from all this blatant discrimination and prejudice? It leaves young LGBT people feeling depressed, unaccepted and distanced from your ‘normal’ society, thus leading to all this issues you stated before.

    • even when accepted, many feel it is inherently wrong (and according to the Bible, they are right). This is what causes the depression.

  13. This is ridiculous. HOW can you liken legalising same-sex marriage to legalising paedophilia?? You DISGUST me. You should use your OWN views. Not those of those who wrote the bible. A fully grown adult cannot even think for themself and the closed-mindedness of this article makes me feel sick. This is coming from a 15 year old girl. Even I have my own views and you can’t????????????

    • I DO have my own views. I’ve been there and done that (concerning homosexual experiences). Whether they are enjoyable or not does not matter. What matters is what does God say about it. He says its wrong.

      I did not liken homosexual marriage and pedophila. As for whether the legalization of homosexual marriage will lead to the legalization of pedophilia, we can already see people in society attempting to use the legalization of homosexual marriage as the basis for legalizing polygamist marriage as well as legalizing incestuous marriage (brother-sister, father-daughter). We also see the attempt to classify pedophila as a sexual orientation as a step towards its legalization. So I dont think I’m too far off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers

%d bloggers like this: